Jari,
> Secondly, I’m have similar concerns to Christian, Lars, Stephen and others.
> More specifically, at the BOF the goal seemed to be creation of infrastructures to manage and track identities, and to bind them to entities that assigned them.
> I am not at all sure that’s a desirable direction. And the charter says little about the assumptions behind the work.
>To expand a bit on these concerns, the proposed work doesn’t consider at all the types of identifier operations that work on ephemeral identities (e.g., HIP, MP-TCP).
>It would be sad if we created systems that forced us to manage identifiers from some infrastructure when all we needed to do in a particular case was “prove that you are
>the same entity as in the other connection”, which can be done e2e and requires no infrastructure, or permanent identifiers.
I hope you agree, when we talk about a mapping system - it's important
- Who can update the mappings
- Who can access the mappings
Both needs AUTH and hence an Identity (EAP or whatever mechanism with anonymous or pseudonymous access) & provider ==> essentially an access ID.
If you don't restrict who can access the mapping (2nd question) one would get a primitive system, but the ability to provide some control is useful for lot of scenarios (including lot of IoT/Vehicular nodes having mobility and multi-access).
In any case, you should still restrict who can update whose mappings.
You need this "standardized" system with well-defined interfaces for
a. lot of local IoT/enterprise deployments and
b. can be extended through a federated system where only mapping of Identifiers and locations can be shared among providers for further reachability (central to any mobility system, regardless of which ID/LOC protocol).
With regard to privacy concerns raised, I still believe there are IETF approved solutions like https://tools.ietf.org/wg/abfab/ can be leveraged here too.
What data plane identifier is another aspect and that is governed by ID/LOC protocols.
--
Uma C.